Does Gods Existence Nessitate Our Universe? (Catholics & Thomists Only Please)

[MindOverMatter]

I want to discuss Gods attributes and what that might necessitate in so far as Gods eternal act. Those who are not Catholics or Thomist or Theists, are free to watch the debate, as you are members of this forums community, and it is not my intention to exclude anybody. And please feel free to open another thread if you wish to challenge any of the arguments on this thread; by all means. That would be interesting. But, insofar as this particular topic is concerned, i do not want nor care for the metaphysical opinions of anyone else accept for the groups stated in the threads title; which is plain to see. Also, if you happen to be a Catholic or a Theist who doesn’t identify Gods perfection as meaning an “unchanging infinite being”, ontologically and Morally, then perhaps this would be a topic best left for another debate which i will happily join. I do not want this thread to be derailed by process theology. I hope that nobody will be bitter by my exclusion of anybody.

Here are my premises for the following discussion…

It is my understanding that God is a perfect eternal will. This will is a living expression of the greatest good. Thus God is pure love, not simply in act, but in being, since they are one and the same in God. Given this fact, we must understand that God expresses his love from all eternity, and that therefore “love”, in its self, is fundamentally creative as well as personal; since love shares its existence eternally.
While i do not believe that this necessarily necessitates any particular kind of creation, i do believe that creativity is a fundamental & natural aspect of Gods love and thus it was always going to be the case that God would create something. Otherwise it could be the case that God would have not created anything at all for all eternity, and this would seem to undermine Gods nature as love. Remember that God doesn’t act within time, as if to say God is a being among beings. Instead God acts as being itself, with his whole being in all his perfection and glory.

It seems to me therefore that we cannot simply understand “God freedom” in terms of the kind of freewill that human beings have, since it follows from Gods fundamental attributes that God shares his being and loves being from all eternity. God creates in his perfection and from his perfection, timelessly, and thus it cannot be easily laid aside that it appears that the universe was always going to exist including the people in it, since the creation is a manifestation of Gods eternal love. This seems to be a fundamental expression of truth and eternal knowledge. But what does that mean in terms of Gods freedom, and how are we to understand Gods freedom in this regard?

I would be interesting to see how you all over-come this apparent obstacle. Also, one final note. While i respect revelation, it cannot be used as a proof. This is a philosophical debate that can certainly be informed by divine theology, but it cannot be dictated to in terms of finding a philosophical answer; if its possible. For instance; you cannot say that because God is seen as moving about freely in the bible, that therefore this is proof of Gods freedom. You can certainly accept that God is free as an act of faith as i do. But in terms of understanding what it means for God to be free in terms of creation is to me a philosophical issue. This is the criteria of our debate

It would be good for all of us to come to an understanding of Gods creative and free act of love.

Peace, and enjoy.

 

[Areopagite]

It is my understanding that God is a perfect eternal will. This will is a living expression of the greatest good. Thus God is pure love, not simply in act, but in being, since they are one and the same in God. Given this fact, we must understand that God expresses his love from all eternity, and that therefore “love”, in its self, is fundamentally creative as well as personal; since love shares its existence eternally.
While i do not believe that this necessarily necessitates any particular kind of creation, i do believe that creativity is a fundamental & natural aspect of Gods love and thus it was always going to be the case that God would create something. Otherwise it could be the case that God would have not created anything at all for all eternity, and this would seem to undermine Gods nature as love. Remember that God doesn’t act within time, as if to say God is a being among beings. Instead God acts as being itself, with his whole being in all his perfection and glory.

I believe that without divine revelation, it would seem to be the case that God’s creation of the universe is necessary to fulfill His nature as love itself. However, (and I hope this doesn’t break your rule about bringing in divine revelation into the debate too much) I believe the idea of the Trinity shows how God can be self-contained and yet fulfill the nature of love, by the spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. However, if we didn’t know that, the universe would seem like a necessity … and in fact, various pagan philosophers (like Plotinus I guess) seems to have said something like this.

It seems to me therefore that we cannot simply understand “God freedom” in terms of the kind of freewill that human beings have, since it follows from Gods fundamental attributes that God shares his being and loves being from all eternity. God creates in his perfection and from his perfection, timelessly, and thus it cannot be easily laid aside that it appears that the universe was always going to exist including the people in it, since the creation is a manifestation of Gods eternal love. This seems to be a fundamental expression of truth and eternal knowledge. But what does that mean in terms of Gods freedom, and how are we to understand Gods freedom in this regard?

I think the term “freedom” when talking about how it applies to God and how it applies to man is used analogously and not univocally. This is true really for everything we say about God almost. The “Goodness” of God is much different from the goodness of men, for example. They are similar, but they are not exactly the same. That is an age-old idea in the Catholic Theology.

I talk about the “necessity” of God creating the universe a bit more on this reply on another thread (and I quote Aquinas there on the matter too):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5730189&postcount=35

If this is horribly unsatisfying, do not restrain yourself.

 

[Geremia]

Does Gods Existence Nessitate Our Universe?

Of course not! God has the power and freedom to create whatever kind of universe He wants or not.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Mom
I’ll give it a go:

God does not need us! God is not the world ! He is the total act of Love ! In the book of Wisdom it says God orders all things. Not co-incidentally Jesus says the same, when mentioning the sparrow and the hairs of our heads. 2 cents worth.

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

 

[itinerant1]

I believe that without divine revelation, it would seem to be the case that God’s creation of the universe is necessary to fulfill His nature as love itself.

That argument does not seem to work because, first of all, without Revelation we would not know that God is love itself. No pagan philosopher, as far as I am aware, ever arrived at the idea of personal God who loves man and who is love itself.

 

[itinerant1]

While i do not believe that this necessarily necessitates any particular kind of creation, i do believe that creativity is a fundamental & natural aspect of Gods love and thus it was always going to be the case that God would create something. Otherwise it could be the case that God would have not created anything at all for all eternity, and this would seem to undermine Gods nature as love.

Since God did create we can say he was always going to create because he knows himself, his will, from all eternity. However, to say that God was always going to create because in fact he did create imposes a necessity to create upon his will. Again, the argument implies that God’s nature as love imposes a necessity upon his will to create. And thus creation is not, by this view, an act freely done out of love, but necessitated by love.

To the contrary, the position involves a reductio ad absurdum, because if we posit that God’s infinite love negates the possibility of God not creating, then there is no reason why he should ever stop creating. That is, if God created X number of rational beings to share in his existence because his infinite love entailed that he must create, that infinite love is not fully expressed by his creating a finite number of beings. By the logic of the argument, God must then continue creating, and never cease to do so. But no one will agree to the idea that God will create an infinite number of creatures because he is infinite love.

 

[geometer]

If you really need to know the answers to your questions, you should ask god. You should not play games.

 

[punkforchrist]

I agree with Areopagite. It seems to me that the Trinity makes sense out of God’s eternal and self-sufficient love. As Augustine illustrated (even if imperfectly), the Father’s love must have an eternal subject. This subject is the Son; and the love between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit.

geometer:

If you really need to know the answers to your questions, you should ask god. You should not play games.

Part of being created in the image of God is our ability to ask questions and use reason. The fact that we have these forums to talk about philosophical matters is itself a reflection of the order that God has imbued the universe with. MindOverMatter, I believe, is expressing a “faith that seeks understanding”, which leads him to inquire about the nature of God’s necessity and love. In turn, God often uses us as instruments to answer these kinds of questions.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Since God did create we can say he was always going to create because he knows himself, his will, from all eternity. However, to say that God was always going to create because in fact he did create imposes a necessity to create upon his will.

I disagree. I think you are misunderstanding what it means for God to be free, so please thoroughly read both posts before commenting, because they need to be understood in light of each-other.

Firstly, it is meaningless to say that God is forced to do something, and that is because God is “act” from all eternity. God does not take time to choose, and so does not act according to an influence or a need to fulfill some desire. Thus God must act according to his nature, or cease to be God; and that is simply because God wills is his nature. God “is” eternal act/eternal love. Thus it must be said that God acts because thats what a perfect being does; but not because of some desire to be complete, but because God is complete; and that is why Gods love is perfect. It is not a whim of desire. God is fundamentally a perfect “act”. In the case of Creation, God creates because thats what love does, love is as such that its fundamental nature is to share, because thats what it is to perfectly love. Thus it seems to me that it is in Gods nature to create, because his eternal will is to create. But i would say that God creates for the sake of love, and the out come of that is not anything in particular but rather any mode being that can express Gods love in various forms or natures. Creation is itself is a kind of metaphor; an expression of the language of love.

Secondly; the difficulty of understanding Gods freedom lies in our unconscious association of human freewill and Gods freewill, in the mistaken belief that human freewill is its own perfect end. Thus we say that one is not perfect if one does not freely choose to create from a state of neutrality like human beings do; and thus it is argued that if Gods will is timeless, then God is not free, and thus God is imperfect. But if we understand the eternal perfect act to be freedom in itself, as in the perfect end of human freewill, then the problem of Gods freedom disappears, since we are not applying and cannot apply to God the same kind of freewill that human beings have, since human freewill in itself is not a perfection outside the nature of God. Human freewill by itself is in fact a limitation, since one can choose evil. Human freewill, from the standpoint of creation, only becomes a perfection in light of that which is eternal “love”, as in having the freedom to choose it. Human freewill is perfect in light of the fundamental cause and end for which it was created, and that is the perfect act/God.

God is not simply choosing something. God is the perfect choice; the perfect act. God creates because it is in the nature of perfection to do so. To be perfectly creative, is to be free; not for the sake of the end, but in the function itself. To perfectly love, is to be free, for the sake of its function. God does not choose like a human being. God is already act. Thus i see no contradiction in thinking that creation is a natural manifestation of Gods nature. Its not something that is chosen, like a human being chooses, but something that is perfectly given. Its impossible for God to act otherwise. Its either in Gods nature to act, or it isn’t. It cannot be presented as a choice that God must consider for the sake of fulfilling some end, since God is already his own end.

To be Continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

And thus creation is not, by this view, an act freely done out of love, but necessitated by love.

I agree that it is not valid according to the “human view” of freedom. However, God is love. Thus Gods very being is a loving act. If we say that God merely chooses to love; then God is no different to a human being. To say that God is love is to identify what is seemingly two separate natures as one natural whole. The problem with God merely choosing to love is that, If God chooses to love, then this would mean that God can choose to do evil; which is not correct in so far as i understand God to be an absolute transcendent perfection. It is “impossible” for God to choose evil, because it would contradict his very nature of being, and it would be impossible for God to become perfect simply by choosing perfection, since perfection cannot be obtained from a state of imperfection through “act” alone. In fact, if God chose evil, existence it self would cease to be. This would also mean that God would not be the true standard of good. There would be a standard higher then God which God feels and believes he ought to act for. Which would mean that God is a lower being then love, and thus God would not be God. Love would be God. But Catholics believe precisely that. They believe that the truest God is love; and inorder for that to be true and objectively meaningful, love must have a positive, objective, universal existence.

if we posit that God’s infinite love negates the possibility of God not creating, then there is no reason why he should ever stop creating.

God is being, thus God is an eternal act, and thus God is an eternal cause. Also, God eternally creates in so far as God eternally sustains in being that which is a potential manifestation of Love. Causing beings to exist is not the only form of creation

…infinite love is not fully expressed by his creating a finite number of beings.

I do see the power of your objection. But it must be stressed that God does not create to be satisfied; but simply creates, because its his perfection to do so. I agree however, that God being love would seem to necessitate that God creates to no end. But again, we must take in to account other aspects of love. “Sustenance” is a form of creation and love because this is good, and also “completion” is a perfection, as in completing a task or a goal set for creation, because that is good too. Love doesn’t just arbitrarily create. Creation exist for a specific end; and it seems that love acts for meaningful ends, such as the unity of all creation with God. It seems that this would put a limit on how much God creates since the end would never be fulfilled if God is eternally creating new beings, not to mention that its logically impossible to create an infinite number of potential entities. And so it seems that an infinite creation would not be a manifestation of love, but rather sustenance and completion, as in “fulfillment” of creation, would be the true ends of love.

But you also point out what seems to be another problem. It seems that perhaps, God will create a maximum number of beings as an expression of his eternal love; but what is the maximum? You can always add on one or more. God would have to arbitrarily stunt his creation, since at what number should love stop creating, and wouldn’t it not mean that God must choose not to love? Perhaps God would seek a greater number then 1, but you cannot have an infinite number of potential beings, and so perhaps, given that God works for a definite end, and it is not a contradiction for there to be a finite number of beings, then maybe “natural evolution” would be a unselfish means of obtaining a great number or multitude without Gods direct interference, accept in respect of sustenance and the creation of souls? It seems that God allowing things to take a natural course might solve the problem, including the fact it makes sense of why God would choose evolution as a “creative method”, rather then creation by fiat.

I’m not absolutely sure of this arguement; its in its infant stages, and your argument does present real problems to consider. But i think that there is a lot to consider in my rebuttal, including the fact that even if you are right, it doesn’t solve the problem of Gods freedom.

But no one will agree to the idea that God will create an infinite number of creatures because he is infinite love.

It depends on the reasons why God is creating. I don’t think it is necessarily true that God is unfulfilled if one considers that God is already prefect and that creation is an expression of that perfection. It is true that God would create forever, but not because the creation causes Gods act.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That argument does not seem to work because, first of all, without Revelation we would not know that God is love itself. No pagan philosopher, as far as I am aware, ever arrived at the idea of personal God who loves man and who is love itself.

I never said that we cannot use catholic theology to inform our arguments. I said that you cannot use Catholic theology as proof. For instance, you cannot give a philosophical arguement that Jesus Christ is the son because scripture said so. This is dogmatically true, but its not a philosophical arguement.
You can use “theological-philosophy” because we are trying to understand theological themes using philosophical devices.

 

[itinerant1]

I agree that it is not valid according to the “human view” of freedom. However, God is love. Thus Gods very being is a loving act. If we say that God merely chooses to love; then God is no different to a human being.

Questions…

I don’t have a response yet, as I am still studying your argument. I am not even sure yet if we have a real difference of opinion, or whether the difficulty is with the limits of analogy, or some other possibility…

For the sake of clarification, I did not say God chooses to love. Rather, my statement concerned choosing to create, which act seemed necessitated, as I understand (or misunderstand) your argument, by His love. You seem to be equating God’s act of creating with His love, in the sense that because God is love, that infinite love in itself manifests itself, and must necessarily do so, by creating. Is this correct?

But one can argue about my use of the term necessarily. But how else to express the idea that “not creating” was not a real possibility with God, as I understand your argument? Granted that God’s nature is simple, and there is no composition or potency in him. God is pure act. Yet, we finite beings must make certain distinctions in order to understand and speak about God.

God created a universe of a particular type. We say that he could have created a very different one than the one he did create. This implies a choice on God’s part. No language exists to express it any way other than as a choice. In this same sense, I am saying that God chose to create. The analogy holds because it implies the real possibility on God’s part of not having created, just as the human will has the real potential of choosing to do A, or choosing not to do A. But your argument seems to say that God, being who he is, pure act, love, etc. means creation was inevitable, though we should not understand God creating in the way that a human makes choices to act. Is this correct?

How does the logic of your argument deal with the question of God’s “choice” of creating universe A instead of B or C or D? Since A was created, was it always going to be A? This latter case would seem to follow from your argument. What then do we mean when we say God could have created a different universe than the one he did create?

Have the human distinctions of God’s power, will, freedom, love, and action, which in reality are identical with God’s essence, merely disappeared into a Parmenidean One like, of pure actuality, so that creation is an emanation of love that was always to be the case from all eternity?

Going back now to study your argument closer…

 

[MindOverMatter]

God created a universe of a particular type. We say that he could have created a very different one than the one he did create.

I haven’t read all of your post yet. But this part cuaght my eye. I think love creates in so far as the creation can be united with Gods will. This would certainly limited the kinds of worlds that God could create. To me, this world is more like a just right kind of world, were man is able to respond to love to a sufficient degree. Also, it seems to me that God will create as many worlds as we create metaphors and analogies. To me potential reality is by definition an expression of love, and thus a reality that comes to exist will function or exist in such a way as to express or reflect the nature, law, unity, and creativity, of God, through various metaphors or analogies; and it may be that other realities may even accompany those creative metaphors or expressions of love in so far as they fulfill the creation or unite the creation to God. I am not sure that we can assume that God creates “particular” realities. Rather God creates that which reflects his eternal will. We happen to exist in a reality that reflects Gods eternal will.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The analogy holds because it implies the real possibility on God’s part of not having created, just as the human will has the real potential of choosing to do A, or choosing not to do A.

Lets make this easier. For the sake of arguement lets imagine that God is subject to time and acts in time. In this respect, God would choose “not” to actualize “A”, but only if its actuality did not reflect his eternal will which is love. We cannot get away from the fact that God chooses in respect of love and chooses only that. Now in respect of a timeless being, which God is, God is a perfect act, and God could not act otherwise accept through one eternal and perfect will. Thus, it must be the case that everything God would do, is necessarily an expression of his fundamental nature. Love is creative by its natural definition, because it is as such that it would share its existence from all eternity. Thats what a perfectly loving being does, and so it is correct of me to say that there would have always been necessarily, in regards to a perfect love, a “creation”. This is why we see a creation. It could never be the case that God would not create, because this would not be God by nature of being. That would be an impotent God; which is no God at all. God would only choose not to create if in doing so his love would become ineffective. In other words he would not create a world that did not reflect his natural will; and this is the only criteria that can be given to God for not creating something.

Although i reject the kind of freedom that is associated with human beings, I am not saying that God doesn’t act freely. I am saying that Gods perfect love is eternal freedom because it is without limitation or possible error, and that freedom necessitates Gods expression as such; which means creation from all eternity. If that were not so, then it would be the case that God would never have expressed his nature. The problem with that is, it is in Gods perfect nature to express love not just for its self but for the creation.

your argument seems to say that God, being who he is, pure act, love, etc. means creation was inevitable, though we should not understand God creating in the way that a human makes choices to act. Is this correct?

Yes.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Have the human distinctions of God’s power, will, freedom, love, and action, which in reality are identical with God’s essence, merely disappeared into a Parmenidean One like, of pure actuality, so that creation is an emanation of love that was always to be the case from all eternity?

Love is freedom. Love is act. Love is sharing and thus love is creativity. To say that creation emanates from love, is only to say that God acts. It is not to say that God is some kind of inactive super-being choosing nothing while new entities emanate from his being as a result of his presence. His being is an eternal act to bring about the presence of other entities into the being of love. And God acts in so far as God is Love; and would not act otherwise. I do not see this as falling into the error of neo-Platonism.

 

[itinerant1]

It could never be the case that God would not create, because this would not be God by nature of being.

This clarifies the matter. It is what I knew you were implying, but I just wanted to make sure. Now, this is a position that I will have to think over before I decide whether I can agree or not. My tendency is to disagree, but then again, I can’t imagine God not having created anything. One might ask, “What kind of God would that be?” But then again, no one be around to ask that question if he was that kind of God.

In any case, you have presented a thought provoking argument, and I will have to think over this issue. Thinking can be risky. Last time I stopped to think I couldn’t get started again.

 

[itinerant1]

While i do not believe that this necessarily necessitates any particular kind of creation, i do believe that creativity is a fundamental & natural aspect of Gods love and thus it was always going to be the case that God would create something. Otherwise it could be the case that God would have not created anything at all for all eternity, and this would seem to undermine Gods nature as love.

After consulting with St. Thomas, my position herein will be an objection to your thesis. My objection is based on the distinction of (1) that which God wills necessarily and (2) that which God wills freely.

First of all, creation is recognized as a communication (ST I, q.44, a.4). Accordingly, it is not characteristic of the First Agent, who is agent only, to act to gain some end. God intends only to communicate his perfection, i.e. his goodness. In so doing, every creature came from God by his will and not from any natural necessity. (cf. On the Power of God, q.3, a.15)

In regard to God’s freedom, he wills his own goodness necessarily. Yet God’s will is free insofar as it is not by absolute necessity or by determination of nature that he wills everything that he wills. The one object toward which his will is not free, and to which it has a relationship of necessity is his own divine goodness. Toward all other things, God’s will is free–he wills these things because he chooses to will them and for no other reason. Nothing in them and nothing in God’s nature compels him to will them. (cf. ST I, 19, 10, c.)

(In case anyone should object to the position that says God wills himself necessarily, this does not contradict his freedom in any manner. It is merely a way of stating that God has will. God cannot look upon his infinite goodness, i.e. himself, and not love it with an infinite love.)

Whatever else God wills, he wills freely, and for the sake of his own goodness. Here we must keep in mind that this goodness exists and is absolutely complete without anything else. There is nothing else that God must will. Whatever else God wills other than his own goodness, he wills freely. On this point, St. Thomas says,

“Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect and can exist without other things, inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that for Him to will things other than Himself is not absolutely necessary.” (ST I 19, 3, c.)

Since God does not will other things necessarily, he has free choice with respect to what he does not will necessarily.

Not even the necessary willing of his own goodness can be said to be the cause of God’s freely willing created things. He wills other things for the sake of his own goodness, but he does so in the one same act of will.

From the aforementioned considerations, it must be concluded, then, that “it could be the case that God would have not created anything at all for all eternity.” Q.E.D.

 

[MindOverMatter]

After consulting with St. Thomas, my position herein will be an objection to your thesis. My objection is based on the distinction of (1) that which God wills necessarily and (2) that which God wills freely.

First of all, creation is recognized as a communication (ST I, q.44, a.4). Accordingly, it is not characteristic of the First Agent, who is agent only, to act to gain some end. God intends only to communicate his perfection, i.e. his goodness. In so doing, every creature came from God by his will and not from any natural necessity. (cf. On the Power of God, q.3, a.15)

In regard to God’s freedom, he wills his own goodness necessarily. Yet God’s will is free insofar as it is not by absolute necessity or by determination of nature that he wills everything that he wills. The one object toward which his will is not free, and to which it has a relationship of necessity is his own divine goodness. Toward all other things, God’s will is free–he wills these things because he chooses to will them and for no other reason. Nothing in them and nothing in God’s nature compels him to will them. (cf. ST I, 19, 10, c.)

(In case anyone should object to the position that says God wills himself necessarily, this does not contradict his freedom in any manner. It is merely a way of stating that God has will. God cannot look upon his infinite goodness, i.e. himself, and not love it with an infinite love.)

Whatever else God wills, he wills freely, and for the sake of his own goodness. Here we must keep in mind that this goodness exists and is absolutely complete without anything else. There is nothing else that God must will. Whatever else God wills other than his own goodness, he wills freely. On this point, St. Thomas says,

“Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect and can exist without other things, inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that for Him to will things other than Himself is not absolutely necessary.” (ST I 19, 3, c.)

Since God does not will other things necessarily, he has free choice with respect to what he does not will necessarily.

Not even the necessary willing of his own goodness can be said to be the cause of God’s freely willing created things. He wills other things for the sake of his own goodness, but he does so in the one same act of will.

From the aforementioned considerations, it must be concluded, then, that “it could be the case that God would have not created anything at all for all eternity.” Q.E.D.

Thanks for the reply.

First of all, let me make it clear again that i do not intend to say that God is not free. Try not to jump to that conclusion. What i have done is expose a problem that cannot be solved by simply stating that God is free. If we are to resolve the problem then we have to understand what it means for God to be free because the human notion of freewill when applied to God is contradicted by the fact that God is an eternal and perfect will which is identical to his existence. The fact of the matter is, we know from the knowledge of our own existence that Creation has followed from Gods eternal and perfect will, from all eternity, and thus from Gods very existence. In which case Gods act cannot be arbitrary. It is true that God acts simply in respect of love with out desire for some kind of fulfillment; however love is of the tendency to share, and will share because Love by its very nature does not keep everything to its self; because thats not the nature of love. Thus it cannot be contradictory to say that it is of Gods nature to share, which implies creation. Unless one is willing to say that God is not love by nature, but instead was a neutral being that just happens to have chosen to do good (which doesn’t seem to me to be a correct understanding Gods nature). What you have written, although you may happen to be correct to say that God is free, does not disprove my arguement.
I already understand and agree that Gods freedom is a necessary aspect of Gods perfection in terms of his personal nature. The context in which we understand Gods freedom is a different matter, and this i where philosophy comes in.

It seems to me that what Aquinas has written is in the context of Gods necessity and the contingency of creation. In other words. God must exist, but creation does not have to exist. This in its self expresses that God must be free in the sense that creation follows from Gods will; however this is not enough to understand what it means for God to be free; and this is where allot of theists and atheists would have a problem. In the following quote - Yet God’s will is free insofar as it is not by absolute necessity or by determination of nature that he wills everything that he wills" he seems to agree with your position. However, I would also agree with this, if what he intends to say is that neither Creation or some nature apart from his will to create, forces him to do so. I agree with this. What i said was, from the beginning, is that we cannot apply the same kind of freedom to God that human beings have; and that given the fact that Gods will is eternal and one, creation there for follows necessarily, not by its own nature, but from Gods eternal will to create from all eternity. You have not defeated this arguement, as you have not taken in to consideration that Gods “will” is “eternal”, and that his will follows eternally from love. I also explained that the nature of love is as such that it will share because thats its nature, and thus creation follows necessarily. Aquinas said himself that God cannot change his nature. You cannot apply thought processes to God and say that considered creating a particular thing, because his will is a timeless act. But you have chosen to understand this as gods attributes forcing God to create; but God is his attributes. God is love. And i think we would both agree that God acts according to his nature. Thus it cannot be true that God could have chosen not to create, unless you mean it in the sense of the worlds dependency on Gods will. It is certainly true that the universe does not exist necessarily. But God does exist necessarily, and there are certain things that follow necessarily from God being such as love, and there are actions that follow necessarily from Gods will, and Gods will is moved by His eternal love. These to me are inescapable facts, which i tried to remedy by showing that Gods freedom is not the same as human freedom. I personally think that i was successful. But i don’t think you have read my posts properly.

 

[itinerant1]

Thus it cannot be true that God could have chosen not to create, unless you mean it in the sense of the worlds dependency on Gods will. It is certainly true that the universe does not exist necessarily. But God does exist necessarily, and there are certain things that follow necessarily from God being such as love, and there are actions that follow necessarily from Gods will, and Gods will is moved by His eternal love. These to me are inescapable facts, which i tried to remedy by showing that Gods freedom is not the same as human freedom. I personally think that i was successful. But i don’t think you have read my posts properly.

MindOverMatter: What is mind? Not matter. What is matter? Never mind. But, If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter. (just playing with words).

I am certainly open to being corrected on how to interpret your argument. It would be impossible to correctly argue against a position if that position is not first understood as intended. Accordingly, at this point I would need specific enlightenment as to exactly what in your argument I have misinterpreted.

If you don’t mind, as I see the matter, I have not interpreted God’s will or freedom overly anthropomorphically. Of course, there must be some analogy between human and divine will. My argument assumes that whatever God wills he wills necessarily because he posses infinite knowledge, and his will is one with his essence. Furthermore, what God wills he wills from all eternity. Hence God cannot change what he wills since he is infinite wisdom.

What was just said, has been stated to show what my argument assumes about the divine will. My argument is consistent with this conception of divine will, a conception very different than that of finite, changeable human will that seeks an end in its act of will, as well as the means necessary to achieve that end.

Accordingly, it is being consistent with the nature of God’s Essential simplicity to assert a distinction between what God wills necessarily and what he wills freely, the latter being creation, which was not willed of necessity out of the divine nature.

So far, I believe this is fully consistent with St. Thomas’ understanding of the divine will. Now, your argument, and correct me if I am wrong, implies that God’s creative act, his will to create, follows of necessity, and from all eternity, of course, from God’s nature as infinite love in the sense that infinite love must express or communicate itself in creation. If your argument claims creation follows from and is communicated by God of necessity, in accordance with his nature, then I am objecting on the basis of the analogy of voluntary act, which act of will, alone and of itself, is not necessitated by nature. This implies that creation may not have taken place. To claim that creation may not have been willed by God in no way denies that his choice to create was not made from all eternity and is one with his essence, and is an unchangeable act of will. That is, God cannot choose to uncreate that which he has created.

Other than this clarification, I do not see where I have missed your point of contention.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I am certainly open to being corrected on how to interpret your argument. It would be impossible to correctly argue against a position if that position is not first understood as intended. Accordingly, at this point I would need specific enlightenment as to exactly what in your argument I have misinterpreted.

I presented a problem. I never said that God was not free. I said that God cannot be thought to be free in the same sense that human beings are. I even showed why such a possibility would undermine his perfection. This you will find in detail in my second and third posts on this thread; and every other post after that. What you have presented is certainly words for thought, but it has not really addressed my arguement. You seem to be arguing from authority. You have simply said that Aquinas said B, therefore it is B.

Of course, there must be some analogy between human and divine will.

Its a personal “will”. That is one similarity. However the sense in which they are both free, is completely different. One acts according to a whim or desire in time (human beings) and the other acts according to its fundamental nature which is love. We cannot disguise that difference with language. Once one understand what love is, it seems to me that it cannot be the case that God would not love his creation. And this is what necessitates its existence; the love of God which is Gods will. Which seems to me to suggest that God is by definition a creative being. I am not claiming here that necessity means that God does not act freely. Gods perfection is true freedom. What i am trying to understand is what that means in regards to an eternal will. An eternal will has never not willed the universe, or thought not to. That makes sense in terms of a perfect will that is an expression of its divine nature. But it doesn’t make sense to say that God “decided” to create the universe. The kind of freedom that you are implying is like that of human being whom makes a decision in time. To say that God decided, does not fit well with the idea of an eternal will. God does not need to decide. God simply acts according to love. Do you disagree that God acts according to a perfect love? If so, do you deny that a perfect love is perfectly given?

By the way i accept that i may be wrong, but i just want you to address the main issues directly instead of just saying that God must have been free. To assert a distinction between what God wills necessarily and what he wills freely, is not enough. Perhaps i am using the word necessity in a confusing manner, i don’t know.

What was just said, has been stated to show what my argument assumes about the divine will. My argument is consistent with this conception of divine will, a conception very different than that of finite, changeable human will that seeks an end in its act of will, as well as the means necessary to achieve that end.

Accordingly, it is being consistent with the nature of God’s Essential simplicity to assert a distinction between what God wills necessarily and what he wills freely, the latter being creation, which was not willed of necessity out of the divine nature.

I am objecting on the basis of the analogy of voluntary act, which act of will, alone and of itself, is not necessitated by nature.

Gods will is identical with his eternal nature and his will is as such in so far as his nature is concerned, as far as i understand it. There is no difference between Gods being and Gods willing. God wills the creation from all eternity, and has never not willed it. In so far as God exists, God has willed creation. Can you please address this issue?

I am objecting on the basis of the analogy of voluntary act, which act of will, alone and of itself, is not necessitated by nature.

A human act to create something is not necessitated by being human. A human can choose not to create something, because he acts in time and seeks what he wants or desires. God acts according to his nature. His nature is love and thus his will is love. A perfect love is as such that it shares its existence with lesser beings; hence creation. Can you please address this issue.

This implies that creation may not have taken place.

You are just saying that God is free because it would be a contradiction of his freedom not to be. But this in itself does not explain how God is free. In what sense is God free. It is not the same kind of freedom that human beings have.

To claim that creation may not have been willed by God in no way denies that his choice to create was not made from all eternity and is one with his essence,

Explain how thats the case.

and is an unchangeable act of will. That is, God cannot choose to uncreate that which he has created.

Of coarse since he acts according to his fundamental nature of being once and for all eternity.